Advancements in Bioink Development: Engineering Functional Biomimetic Scaffolds for 3D Bioprinting

Abstract

3D bioprinting has emerged as a promising technology for fabricating complex, three-dimensional tissue constructs for regenerative medicine, drug discovery, and personalized healthcare. A critical component of this technology is the bioink, the material used to encapsulate cells and construct the desired tissue architecture. While significant progress has been made in bioink development, challenges remain in creating materials that effectively mimic the native tissue microenvironment and support long-term cell viability, differentiation, and function. This research report provides a comprehensive overview of current bioink formulations, including hydrogels, decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM), and composite materials. We delve into the key properties of bioinks, such as biocompatibility, printability, mechanical strength, and degradation rate, and discuss the trade-offs involved in optimizing these properties. Furthermore, we explore novel bioink strategies, including the incorporation of bioactive molecules, microparticle reinforcement, and multi-material printing approaches, aimed at enhancing bioink functionality and creating more realistic and functional bioprinted tissues. We also discuss the emerging field of 4D bioprinting, where bioinks are designed to respond to stimuli, leading to dynamic tissue constructs. Finally, the report identifies key challenges and future directions in bioink research, emphasizing the need for translational studies and standardized testing methods to accelerate the clinical application of bioprinted tissues.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

3D bioprinting, an additive manufacturing technique, has rapidly evolved as a compelling strategy for creating functional tissues and organs. Unlike traditional tissue engineering approaches that often rely on static scaffolds and diffusion-limited nutrient transport, bioprinting allows for precise control over cell placement, matrix composition, and structural organization, enabling the fabrication of complex and heterogeneous tissue architectures. The ultimate goal of bioprinting is to generate functional tissue constructs that can be used for various applications, including organ transplantation, drug screening, disease modeling, and personalized medicine.

The bioink is the fundamental building block of any bioprinted construct. It serves as the carrier for cells and provides the structural and biochemical cues necessary for cell survival, proliferation, differentiation, and tissue formation. An ideal bioink should possess a combination of properties, including excellent biocompatibility to minimize adverse cellular responses, sufficient printability to ensure accurate deposition and structural integrity, and appropriate mechanical properties to mimic the stiffness and elasticity of the target tissue. Moreover, the bioink should promote cell adhesion, migration, and differentiation, and allow for efficient nutrient and waste transport.

However, the development of bioinks that meet all of these requirements remains a significant challenge. Many existing bioinks lack the complex composition and dynamic properties of the native extracellular matrix (ECM), which plays a crucial role in regulating cell behavior. As a result, bioprinted tissues often exhibit limited functionality and long-term stability. To address these limitations, researchers are actively exploring novel bioink formulations and strategies to enhance their biocompatibility, printability, mechanical properties, and bioactivity. This research report aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state-of-the-art in bioink development, highlighting the different types of bioinks, their properties, and the challenges and opportunities in creating more realistic and functional bioprinted tissues.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Classification of Bioinks

Bioinks can be broadly classified based on their composition and source. The most common types of bioinks include hydrogels, decellularized extracellular matrix (dECM), and composite materials.

2.1. Hydrogels

Hydrogels are three-dimensional networks of hydrophilic polymers that can absorb and retain large amounts of water. They are widely used as bioinks due to their biocompatibility, tunable mechanical properties, and ease of modification. Hydrogels can be derived from natural or synthetic sources, each offering distinct advantages and disadvantages.

2.1.1. Natural Hydrogels

Natural hydrogels are derived from biological sources such as proteins, polysaccharides, and lipids. They often exhibit excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability, and can provide cells with specific biological cues that promote cell adhesion, migration, and differentiation.

• Alginate: A polysaccharide derived from brown algae, alginate is a widely used bioink material due to its low cost, biocompatibility, and ease of gelation through ionic crosslinking with divalent cations like calcium. However, alginate lacks cell adhesion motifs and exhibits poor mechanical properties, limiting its use in load-bearing applications. Modifications such as incorporating cell-adhesive peptides (e.g., RGD) or crosslinking with other polymers can improve its functionality.

• Collagen: A major component of the ECM, collagen is a naturally occurring protein that provides structural support and regulates cell behavior. Collagen hydrogels exhibit excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability, and can promote cell adhesion, proliferation, and differentiation. However, collagen hydrogels often exhibit poor mechanical strength and rapid degradation, which can be improved by crosslinking with chemical agents or enzymes. Furthermore, the source of collagen (e.g., bovine, porcine, human) can influence its immunogenicity and mechanical properties.

• Gelatin Methacrylate (GelMA): GelMA is a derivative of collagen modified with methacrylate groups, allowing for photocrosslinking using UV or visible light. GelMA hydrogels offer improved mechanical properties and control over degradation compared to native collagen. The degree of methacrylation can be tuned to modulate the crosslinking density and mechanical stiffness of the hydrogel. GelMA is widely used in bioprinting due to its printability, biocompatibility, and ability to support cell growth and differentiation.

• Hyaluronic Acid (HA): A naturally occurring polysaccharide found in the ECM, HA plays a crucial role in tissue hydration, cell migration, and wound healing. HA hydrogels exhibit excellent biocompatibility and biodegradability, and can be modified with cell-adhesive peptides or growth factors to enhance their bioactivity. HA hydrogels are often used in bioprinting applications that require cell migration and tissue remodeling.

• Fibrin: A protein involved in blood clotting, fibrin forms a natural scaffold for cell adhesion and migration. Fibrin hydrogels are biocompatible and biodegradable, and can promote angiogenesis and tissue regeneration. However, fibrin hydrogels exhibit poor mechanical properties and rapid degradation, which can be improved by crosslinking with other polymers or growth factors.

2.1.2. Synthetic Hydrogels

Synthetic hydrogels are composed of synthetic polymers that can be precisely controlled in terms of their chemical composition, molecular weight, and degradation rate. Synthetic hydrogels offer several advantages over natural hydrogels, including greater batch-to-batch consistency, tunable mechanical properties, and the ability to incorporate specific functional groups.

• Polyethylene Glycol (PEG): A widely used synthetic polymer, PEG is biocompatible, non-immunogenic, and can be readily modified with functional groups. PEG hydrogels can be formed through various crosslinking mechanisms, including photocrosslinking, chemical crosslinking, and enzymatic crosslinking. PEG hydrogels are often used as bioinks due to their printability, tunable mechanical properties, and ability to encapsulate cells without causing significant cytotoxicity.

• Poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA): PVA is a water-soluble synthetic polymer that can be crosslinked through physical or chemical methods. PVA hydrogels exhibit good mechanical strength and biocompatibility, making them suitable for load-bearing applications. However, PVA hydrogels can be difficult to sterilize and may exhibit cytotoxicity at high concentrations.

• Poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA): PLGA is a biodegradable synthetic polymer that is widely used in drug delivery and tissue engineering. PLGA hydrogels can be formed through various crosslinking mechanisms, including chemical crosslinking and solvent casting. PLGA hydrogels exhibit tunable degradation rates and mechanical properties, making them suitable for long-term tissue regeneration applications. However, PLGA hydrogels can be hydrophobic and may require surface modification to improve cell adhesion.

2.2. Decellularized Extracellular Matrix (dECM)

dECM is derived from native tissues or organs by removing the cellular components while preserving the complex three-dimensional structure and biochemical composition of the ECM. dECM bioinks offer several advantages over synthetic and natural hydrogels, including excellent biocompatibility, tissue-specific cues, and the ability to promote cell adhesion, migration, and differentiation.

The process of decellularization is critical for preserving the integrity and bioactivity of the dECM. Various decellularization methods exist, including physical, chemical, and enzymatic treatments. The choice of decellularization method depends on the tissue type and desired properties of the dECM. Harsh decellularization methods can damage the ECM components and reduce their bioactivity, while incomplete decellularization can lead to immune responses.

dECM bioinks can be prepared by solubilizing the dECM in a suitable solvent, such as pepsin or acetic acid, and then crosslinking it to form a hydrogel. The mechanical properties and degradation rate of dECM bioinks can be tuned by varying the concentration of dECM and the crosslinking method.

While dECM bioinks offer significant advantages, challenges remain in their preparation and standardization. The composition of dECM can vary depending on the source tissue and decellularization method, leading to batch-to-batch variability. Moreover, dECM bioinks can be difficult to print due to their high viscosity and tendency to clog the print nozzle.

2.3. Composite Bioinks

Composite bioinks combine two or more materials to leverage their complementary properties. For example, a composite bioink may combine a natural hydrogel with a synthetic polymer to improve its mechanical strength or degradation rate. Composite bioinks can also incorporate bioactive molecules, such as growth factors or peptides, to enhance their bioactivity.

• Hydrogel-Microparticle Composites: Microparticles can be incorporated into hydrogels to enhance their mechanical properties, control drug release, or provide cell adhesion sites. The microparticles can be made from a variety of materials, including ceramics, polymers, and metals.

• Hydrogel-Nanomaterial Composites: Nanomaterials, such as nanoparticles and nanofibers, can be incorporated into hydrogels to improve their mechanical properties, electrical conductivity, or bioactivity. Nanomaterials can also be used to deliver drugs or genes to cells within the hydrogel.

• Multi-Material Bioinks: Multi-material bioprinting allows for the fabrication of complex tissue constructs with spatially varying properties. For example, a multi-material bioink may combine a stiff hydrogel for structural support with a soft hydrogel for cell encapsulation.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Key Properties of Bioinks

A successful bioink must possess a combination of properties that enable it to be printed accurately, support cell survival and function, and mimic the native tissue microenvironment. These properties include biocompatibility, printability, mechanical strength, degradation rate, and bioactivity.

3.1. Biocompatibility

Biocompatibility refers to the ability of a material to be in contact with living cells or tissues without causing adverse reactions. A biocompatible bioink should not elicit significant inflammation, cytotoxicity, or immunogenicity.

The biocompatibility of a bioink depends on its chemical composition, molecular weight, degradation products, and surface properties. Natural hydrogels are generally considered more biocompatible than synthetic hydrogels due to their similarity to the ECM. However, some synthetic hydrogels, such as PEG, are also highly biocompatible.

Biocompatibility testing is an essential step in bioink development. Common biocompatibility tests include cytotoxicity assays, cell adhesion assays, and in vivo implantation studies. Cytotoxicity assays assess the ability of the bioink to kill cells in vitro. Cell adhesion assays evaluate the ability of cells to attach and spread on the bioink surface. In vivo implantation studies assess the biocompatibility of the bioink in a living organism.

3.2. Printability

Printability refers to the ability of a bioink to be extruded through a printer nozzle and maintain its shape and structural integrity after deposition. A printable bioink should exhibit appropriate viscosity, surface tension, and gelation kinetics.

• Viscosity: Viscosity is a measure of a fluid’s resistance to flow. A bioink with low viscosity may spread excessively after deposition, leading to poor printing resolution. A bioink with high viscosity may be difficult to extrude through the printer nozzle. The optimal viscosity of a bioink depends on the printing method and nozzle diameter.

• Surface Tension: Surface tension is the force that causes a liquid to minimize its surface area. A bioink with high surface tension may form droplets at the nozzle tip, leading to inconsistent deposition. A bioink with low surface tension may spread excessively after deposition.

• Gelation Kinetics: Gelation is the process by which a liquid bioink solidifies into a gel. The gelation kinetics of a bioink should be fast enough to prevent the printed structure from collapsing, but slow enough to allow for cell encapsulation and deposition. Various gelation methods are used in bioprinting, including ionic crosslinking, photocrosslinking, and enzymatic crosslinking.

3.3. Mechanical Strength

Mechanical strength refers to the ability of a bioink to withstand applied forces without deforming or breaking. The mechanical strength of a bioink should match the mechanical properties of the target tissue. For example, a bioink for bone tissue should be stiffer than a bioink for cartilage tissue.

The mechanical strength of a bioink depends on its composition, crosslinking density, and microstructure. Synthetic hydrogels generally exhibit higher mechanical strength than natural hydrogels. The mechanical strength of a hydrogel can be tuned by varying the concentration of the polymer, the crosslinking density, and the addition of reinforcing agents, such as microparticles or nanofibers.

3.4. Degradation Rate

Degradation rate refers to the rate at which a bioink breaks down in vivo. The degradation rate of a bioink should be controlled to match the rate of tissue regeneration. If the bioink degrades too quickly, the cells may lose structural support before they can form new tissue. If the bioink degrades too slowly, it may interfere with tissue regeneration.

The degradation rate of a bioink depends on its composition, crosslinking density, and enzymatic susceptibility. Natural hydrogels generally degrade faster than synthetic hydrogels. The degradation rate of a hydrogel can be tuned by varying the type of polymer, the crosslinking method, and the addition of enzymes or other degradation agents.

3.5. Bioactivity

Bioactivity refers to the ability of a bioink to interact with cells and promote specific cellular responses, such as cell adhesion, migration, proliferation, and differentiation. A bioactive bioink should contain cell-adhesive ligands, growth factors, or other signaling molecules that stimulate tissue regeneration.

Bioactivity can be incorporated into bioinks by modifying the polymer backbone with cell-adhesive peptides, such as RGD, or by encapsulating growth factors or other signaling molecules within the bioink. The release of growth factors from the bioink can be controlled by using biodegradable microparticles or by conjugating the growth factors to the polymer backbone.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Novel Bioink Formulations and Strategies

Researchers are actively developing novel bioink formulations and strategies to address the limitations of existing bioinks and create more realistic and functional bioprinted tissues.

4.1. Incorporation of Bioactive Molecules

The incorporation of bioactive molecules, such as growth factors, peptides, and cytokines, into bioinks can enhance their bioactivity and promote specific cellular responses. Growth factors, such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2), can stimulate angiogenesis and bone formation, respectively. Peptides, such as RGD and YIGSR, can promote cell adhesion and migration. Cytokines, such as transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β), can regulate cell differentiation and ECM production.

The release of bioactive molecules from bioinks can be controlled by using various delivery strategies, including encapsulation in microparticles, conjugation to the polymer backbone, and diffusion from the hydrogel matrix. Microparticle encapsulation allows for sustained release of the bioactive molecule, while conjugation to the polymer backbone provides controlled release upon degradation of the hydrogel.

4.2. Microparticle Reinforcement

Microparticles can be incorporated into hydrogels to enhance their mechanical properties, control drug release, or provide cell adhesion sites. The microparticles can be made from a variety of materials, including ceramics, polymers, and metals.

Ceramic microparticles, such as hydroxyapatite (HA) and tricalcium phosphate (TCP), can enhance the mechanical strength and osteoconductivity of bone tissue engineering scaffolds. Polymer microparticles, such as PLGA and polycaprolactone (PCL), can control the release of drugs or growth factors. Metal microparticles, such as titanium dioxide (TiO2) and gold (Au), can enhance the electrical conductivity and photothermal properties of bioinks.

4.3. Multi-Material Printing

Multi-material bioprinting allows for the fabrication of complex tissue constructs with spatially varying properties. For example, a multi-material bioink may combine a stiff hydrogel for structural support with a soft hydrogel for cell encapsulation. Multi-material printing can also be used to create heterogeneous tissue architectures, such as blood vessels or nerve networks.

Various multi-material printing techniques are used in bioprinting, including coaxial printing, drop-on-demand printing, and layer-by-layer printing. Coaxial printing allows for the simultaneous extrusion of two or more bioinks through a single nozzle, creating core-shell structures. Drop-on-demand printing allows for the precise deposition of individual droplets of bioink, enabling the fabrication of complex patterns. Layer-by-layer printing allows for the sequential deposition of different bioinks, creating three-dimensional structures with spatially varying properties.

4.4. 4D Bioprinting

4D bioprinting is an emerging field that involves the use of bioinks that can change their shape or properties over time in response to stimuli, such as temperature, pH, light, or mechanical stress. 4D bioprinting enables the fabrication of dynamic tissue constructs that can mimic the complex and dynamic behavior of native tissues.

Shape-memory polymers are often used in 4D bioprinting. These polymers can be programmed to change their shape in response to a specific stimulus. For example, a shape-memory polymer can be printed into a flat sheet and then triggered to fold into a three-dimensional structure upon exposure to heat.

Hydrogels that respond to pH or light can also be used in 4D bioprinting. For example, a pH-sensitive hydrogel can swell or shrink in response to changes in pH, allowing for the creation of dynamic microenvironments. A light-sensitive hydrogel can be crosslinked or degraded upon exposure to light, allowing for the creation of complex patterns.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Challenges and Future Directions

While significant progress has been made in bioink development, challenges remain in creating materials that effectively mimic the native tissue microenvironment and support long-term cell viability, differentiation, and function.

5.1. Mimicking the Native Tissue Microenvironment

Native tissues are complex and heterogeneous structures composed of cells, ECM, and various signaling molecules. Recreating this complexity in bioprinted tissues is a major challenge. Current bioinks often lack the complex composition and dynamic properties of the native ECM.

Future research should focus on developing bioinks that more closely mimic the native tissue microenvironment. This includes incorporating tissue-specific ECM components, growth factors, and signaling molecules into bioinks. It also includes developing bioinks that can dynamically respond to changes in the cellular environment.

5.2. Improving Long-Term Cell Viability and Function

Maintaining long-term cell viability and function in bioprinted tissues is another major challenge. Cells within bioprinted tissues often experience nutrient deprivation, hypoxia, and mechanical stress.

Future research should focus on developing bioinks that provide adequate nutrient and oxygen transport to cells. This includes developing porous bioinks that allow for diffusion of nutrients and oxygen, as well as incorporating microvascular networks into bioprinted tissues. It also includes developing bioinks that protect cells from mechanical stress.

5.3. Scaling Up Bioprinting for Clinical Applications

Scaling up bioprinting for clinical applications is a significant challenge. Current bioprinting techniques are often slow and labor-intensive, making it difficult to fabricate large-scale tissue constructs.

Future research should focus on developing faster and more automated bioprinting techniques. This includes developing high-throughput bioprinting systems that can print multiple tissue constructs simultaneously. It also includes developing automated bioink formulation and dispensing systems.

5.4. Standardization and Regulatory Issues

The lack of standardized testing methods and regulatory guidelines for bioinks and bioprinted tissues is a major obstacle to their clinical translation.

Future research should focus on developing standardized testing methods for bioink biocompatibility, printability, mechanical properties, and bioactivity. It also includes developing regulatory guidelines for the manufacture and clinical use of bioprinted tissues. The establishment of clear regulatory pathways is critical for ensuring the safety and efficacy of bioprinted tissues and accelerating their clinical translation. Further interdisciplinary collaboration, involving materials scientists, biologists, engineers, and clinicians, is essential to overcome these challenges and realize the full potential of bioprinting.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Conclusion

Bioink development is a rapidly evolving field that holds great promise for regenerative medicine and tissue engineering. While significant progress has been made in creating bioinks that support cell survival and function, challenges remain in mimicking the complex and dynamic properties of the native tissue microenvironment. Novel bioink formulations and strategies, such as the incorporation of bioactive molecules, microparticle reinforcement, multi-material printing, and 4D bioprinting, are being developed to address these challenges. Future research should focus on developing bioinks that more closely mimic the native tissue microenvironment, improve long-term cell viability and function, and are scalable for clinical applications. The establishment of standardized testing methods and regulatory guidelines is also critical for the clinical translation of bioprinted tissues. By overcoming these challenges, we can unlock the full potential of bioprinting and revolutionize the way we treat diseases and injuries.

Many thanks to our sponsor Esdebe who helped us prepare this research report.

References

1. Groll, J., Boland, T., Blasco, E., et al. (2016). Bioinks for 3D bioprinting: an overview. Biofabrication, 8(1), 012001.
2. Obregon, F., Vaquette, C., Ivanovski, S., & Hamlet, S. (2015). Bioprinting for bone regeneration. Journal of Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery, 43(6), 1337-1345.
3. Murphy, S. V., & Atala, A. (2014). 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature biotechnology, 32(8), 773-785.
4. Hutmacher, D. W. (2000). Scaffolds in tissue engineering bone and cartilage. Biomaterials, 21(24), 2529-2543.
5. Lee, J. M., Yeong, W. Y., & Chua, C. K. (2009). Computer-aided tissue engineering for scaffold design and fabrication. Biomaterials, 30(30), 5525-5537.
6. Rider, P. M., Vorp, D. A., & Seif-Naraghi, S. B. (2018). Decellularized tissue and organ scaffolds for regenerative medicine applications. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 7(1), 1700563.
7. Billiet, T., Gevaert, E., De Schryver, T., Cornelissen, M., & Dubruel, P. (2014). The 3D printing of gelatin methacrylamide hydrogels for tissue engineering applications. Biomaterials, 35(1), 49-62.
8. Highley, C. B., & Prestwich, G. D. (2016). Hyaluronic acid-based hydrogels for biomedical engineering. European Polymer Journal, 47(7), 1388–1401.
9. Schuurman, W., Khoshgozaran, A., Van Weeren, P. R., Dhert, W. J., & Malda, J. (2013). Fibrin-based hydrogels as cell carriers for cartilage regeneration. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 65(2), 349-360.
10. Hoffman, A. S. (2012). Hydrogels for biomedical applications. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 64, 18-23.
11. Hennink, W. E., & van Nostrum, C. F. (2012). Novel crosslinking methods to design hydrogels. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 64, 223-236.
12. Nair, L. S., & Laurencin, C. T. (2007). Biodegradable polymers as biomaterials. Progress in Polymer Science, 32(8-9), 762-798.
13. Badylak, S. F. (2002). Xenogeneic extracellular matrix as a scaffold for tissue reconstruction. Acta Biomaterialia, 8(8), 2915-2926.
14. Pati, F., Jang, J., Lee, J. M., et al. (2014). Printing three-dimensional tissue analogues with cells and extracellular matrix. Nature Communications, 5, 3975.
15. Gillispie, G. J., Primbetova, T., & Reece, T. B. (2017). Extracellular matrix-derived bioinks for printing three-dimensional tissue constructs. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part A, 105(12), 3268-3279.
16. Chia, H. N., & Wu, B. M. (2015). Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. Journal of Biological Engineering, 9(1), 4.
17. Zhou, W., Li, H., Wang, Y., et al. (2015). Microfluidic fabrication of monodisperse composite microgels for controlled drug release. Advanced Materials, 27(22), 3362-3368.
18. Park, S. A., Turnbull, G., Rivron, N., & Gadegaard, N. (2016). Bioactive nanofibers for guiding cell behavior in 3D bioprinting. Nanoscale, 8(36), 16382-16391.
19. Blaeser, A., Duarte Campos, D. F., Wilke, A., El Fray, M., & Gremare, A. (2016). Controlling alginate gelation for cell encapsulation in 3D bioprinting. Journal of Tissue Engineering and Regenerative Medicine, 10(1), 54-63.
20. Khademhosseini, A., & Langer, R. (2016). A decade of progress in tissue engineering. Nature Reviews Materials, 1(3), 16003.
21. Jakus, A. E., Rutz, E. M., Jordan, S. W., Young, R. M., & Shah, R. N. (2016). Three-dimensional printing of high-resolution freeform cellular structures using a stereolithographic bioprinting approach. Tissue Engineering Part A, 22(1-2), 69-78.
22. Tibbitt, M. W., & Anseth, K. S. (2009). Hydrogels as extracellular matrix mimics for mammalian cell culture. Biotechnology and Bioengineering, 103(4), 655-659.
23. Slaughter, B. V., Khurshid, S. S., Fisher, O. Z., Khademhosseini, A., & Peppas, N. A. (2009). Polymers for bone and cartilage regeneration. Advanced Materials, 21(32-33), 3307-3329.
24. Fedorovich, N. E., De Wijn, J. R., Verbout, A. J., Alblas, J., Dhert, W. J., & Hennink, W. E. (2007). Three-dimensional fiber deposition of biomimetic calcium phosphate cement scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials, 28(18), 3304-3312.
25. Ovsianikov, A., Khademhosseini, A., & Mironov, V. (2018). The synergy of bioprinting and microfluidics. Trends in Biotechnology, 36(6), 563-566.
26. Agarwal, T., Singh, R., Vijayalakshmi, A., Kumar, P., & Bhatnagar, I. (2019). 4D bioprinting for next-generation tissue engineering and regenerative medicine. Advanced Healthcare Materials, 8(1), 1800843.